The notion of space-time interval should be abandoned because it is
complex and leads to nothing, except final errors.
What is the space-time interval?
A metric, measured in meters.
The notion of space-time interval should be abandoned because it is
complex and leads to nothing, except final errors.
What is the space-time interval?
A metric, measured in meters.
It is mostly an abstract thing that is not very useful.
So we set ds²=dl²-c²t².
Why and for WHAT?
For nothing.
For fun.
Hachel notation is much more practical, because it does not need the
notion of complexes to establish a perfect Pythagoreanism.
[snip nonsensical wanking]
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
Let's pose Tr²=-ds².c² and everything becomes much simpler and much more practical.
Simplicity is disconcerting.
In general, we don't like it too much.
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.
Le 12/08/2024 à 21:06, Python a écrit :You'd better read about your own stupidity, Lengrand.
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.
LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²
If ds²=-Tr²c²
Le 12/08/2024 à 21:06, Python a écrit :
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.
LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²
Den 12.08.2024 22:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 12/08/2024 à 21:06, Python a écrit :
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.
LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
Le 13/08/2024 à 12:44, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 12.08.2024 22:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 12/08/2024 à 21:06, Python a écrit :
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.
LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to circle
in red everything that is wrong and tell you why.
Anyway, it would be useless, and I no longer have the courage (I'm old,
you know now) to want at all costs to give water to donkeys that are not thirsty.
I post here for fun, but I don't want to exhaust myself gesticulating in
the void anymore.
Le 13/08/2024 à 14:46, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 13/08/2024 à 12:44, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 12.08.2024 22:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 12/08/2024 à 21:06, Python a écrit :
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.
LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to
circle in red everything that is wrong and tell you why.
All equations in Paul's article are labelled, you don't have to
draw red circles on them in order to reference them.
Anyway, it would be useless, and I no longer have the courage (I'm
old, you know now) to want at all costs to give water to donkeys that
are not thirsty.
This is quite a pathetic excuse for not accepting being proven wrong.
Which is what happened.
All equations in Paul's article are labelled,
Le 13/08/2024 à 12:44, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to circle
in red everything that is wrong and tell you why.
Anyway, it would be useless, and I no longer have the courage (I'm old,
you know now) to want at all costs to give water to donkeys that are not thirsty.
I post here for fun, but I don't want to exhaust myself gesticulating in
the void anymore.
Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:|
You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
synchronous.
Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
(To within few seconds|
Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
But I keep explaining it to you.
This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
Den 13.08.2024 14:46, skrev Richard Hachel:
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
I think you know that all are correct according to SR.
So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony
and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks
in Oslo and Paris?
Try to explain it again?
Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:|
You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
synchronous.
Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
(To within few seconds|
Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
But I keep explaining it to you.
This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
Please explain why this is not a real speed
in the ground frame.
Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D
You are right, I am not interested in why you claim SR is wrong,
but you keep carrying water to the donkey anyway.
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because t' = t, as Wozniak
is over-fond of saying. (Where , in this case, t' = time in Oslo and t
is
the time in Paris.
Le 14/08/2024 à 00:12, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
is, inThis does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered
forgeneral at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible
andme to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it,
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because t' = t, asWozniak
is over-fond of saying. (Where , in this case, t' = time in Oslo and t
is the time in Paris.
I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS. Abstract synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a universal present
time plan (which does not exist in nature).
It's a shame, you're not making any effort.
It makes discussions very difficult.
R.H.
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.
Le 14/08/2024 00:12, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in >> general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because t' = t, as Wozniak
is over-fond of saying. (Where , in this case, t' = time in Oslo and t
is
the time in Paris.
I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS. Abstract synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a universal present
time plan (which does not exist in nature).
It's a shame, you're not making any effort.
It makes discussions very difficult.
R.H.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:01:19 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
....
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in
general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and
without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because
Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.
Le 14/08/2024 à 06:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because
Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.
What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my
life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: "We
do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than yours, Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's snout", is
that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches.
And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine".
Except that no, GPS proves that I am right.
No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite.
And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history.
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:36, Python a écrit :
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:25, Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>> Le 14/08/2024 à 06:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because
Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.
What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my
life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest:
"We do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than
yours, Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's
snout", is that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches.
You should have noticed a common trait here. Whoever you've been
talking with there were at least one pompous imbecile involved.
(Hint: it's you)
And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine".
Except that no, GPS proves that I am right.
No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite.
And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history.
The few times you've written about GPS on fr.sci.physique you've
only shown that you do not know at all how it works and pulled
out a bunch of idiotic fantasies out of nowhere. Like that
receivers contain an atomic clock (!!!) or that synchronization
was about a distant 4-d clock, etc.
Yes, that's what I said.
We can't synchronize all the watches in our 3D universe.
[snip incoherent babbling]Did you find an atomic clock in your GPS receiver yet?
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:25, Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 14/08/2024 à 06:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
Well, Richard, the GPS disproves your theory, because
Because it suddenly becomes real when it's
comfortable for a relativistic idiot.
What is very funny in the relationships that I would have had all my
life with other men, and which consisted of an immense cock contest: "We
do not want this man to reign over us", "My cock is bigger than yours,
Hachel", "I prefer that we shut up rather than see your rat's snout", is
that I am sometimes opposed to contradictory reproaches.
You should have noticed a common trait here. Whoever you've been
talking with there were at least one pompous imbecile involved.
(Hint: it's you)
And they say: "GPS contradicts your shitty doctrine".
Except that no, GPS proves that I am right.
No anisochrony, the speed of light becomes infinite.
And GPS ends its life in the dustbins of history.
The few times you've written about GPS on fr.sci.physique you've
only shown that you do not know at all how it works and pulled
out a bunch of idiotic fantasies out of nowhere. Like that
receivers contain an atomic clock (!!!) or that synchronization
was about a distant 4-d clock, etc.
.... will consider
that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and that
an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, apprehends
our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, and it is on
this abstract but useful concept that we will synchronize all
terrestrial watches.
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).
These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.
Le 14/08/2024 à 15:08, Python a écrit :
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).
These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.
But you're mixing everything up.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do
this.
It's not hard to understand.
Now you are talking about something else, that is to say the second particularity which is no longer anisochrony, but the relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches, in the sense that time passes less
quickly at the level of the satellite than at the level of a terrestrial clock, and that the chronotropic shift must be regularly reestablished.
R.H.
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.
you see what you made me do, now i gotta go
out and buy some french fries!
R.H.
Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. "Chronotropy" is
a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason why
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in an exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.
Den 14.08.2024 00:01, skrev Richard Hachel:
STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
.... will consider
that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and that
an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, apprehends
our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, and it is on
this abstract but useful concept that we will synchronize all
terrestrial watches.
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:40:44 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.
you see what you made me do, now i gotta go
out and buy some french fries!
I have looked and looked and looked, and all
I can see is rocks ... in your head :-))
Le 13/08/2024 à 19:53, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony
and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks
in Oslo and Paris?
Try to explain it again?
Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:|
You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
synchronous.
Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
(To within few seconds|
Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
But I keep explaining it to you.
This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
Please explain why this is not a real speed
in the ground frame.
Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D
No, no, I am not trying to escape.
I have forty years of relativistic
concepts behind me, and I have a perfect grasp of how things should be taught.
There are several keys to understanding RR, and either none of these
keys are understood, or they are half understood, and that is not satisfactory.
The first key, which is absolutely necessary to open the theory, is the notion of universal anisochrony.
This made a lot of people laugh 40 years ago, because people did not understand this term, nor what I meant by it.
Today, it is a little less funny, and many ask me to explain it in a
simple way, because the concept, although elementary, is not obvious to everyone.
What is universal anisochrony?
It is a property of space, just as universal gravitation is a property
of bodies.
This means that the notion of absolute universal present is an abstract thought.
There is no present moment at this moment that is at the level of a
planet that orbits Altair, for example, and that corresponds
reciprocally to my present moment.
In short, the notion of a flat present does not exist.
It is a thought anchored in man (like the flat earth before), but which
is only a human a priori.
Strangely, this simple idea, which corresponds perfectly to an
intelligent physics, is abandoned by men, while they understand very
well a more difficult concept which is the relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches by change of inertial reference (gamma factor).
We come back to Paris, and to Oslo.
There is therefore a natural anisochrony between Paris and Oslo.
There is no "flat present", "horizontal plane of present time" between
Paris and Oslo. I repeat, it is useless, false and abstract.
So there is a natural, irreversible gap between the two. If we
synchronize the watches on Paris, an event that will occur in Oslo will
not exist for Paris.
An event that will occur in Paris will not exist in Oslo.
This event is only found in the "future of the other".
And so on for the entire universe.
We will always have a time interval, an anisochrony,
which will be related to the distance.
"My present is not your present, and your present is not my present,
there is no absolute universal simultaneity"
So how do we make all this agree anyway?
We will create a universal time, an abstract universal present, which
does not exist, and which corresponds to a synchronization made by an observer placed in a fourth spatial dimension which does not exist, but
which is very useful, because mathematically,
if it is placed very far, perpendicular, and at an equal distance
from all the points of the three-dimensional metric universe which is
ours, it observes all the points in a constant perfect simultaneity.
This point is abstract, does not exist, but allows us to use a universal
time and a perfect present time plan.
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.
Le 14/08/2024 à 16:39, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. "Chronotropy" isan
a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason why
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in
exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.
This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently goes faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to what
SR predicts?"
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.
Since Richard Hachel is not too interested in GR, he does not believe in
it too much. The other two arguments that you have just proposed do not
seem any more judicious to me.
I have a fourth explanation, and it remains within the framework of RR.
R.H.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:37:09 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 14/08/2024 à 16:39, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
an
Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite. "Chronotropy" is
a canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that
it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason why
the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in
exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.
This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently goes
faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to what
SR predicts?"
Because, of course, it's GR.
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.
It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.
Le 14/08/2024 à 15:08, Python a écrit :
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).
These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.
But you're mixing everything up.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial synchronization.
At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this. It's not hard to understand.
Now you are talking about something else, that is to say the second particularity which is no longer anisochrony, but the relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches, in the sense that time passes less
quickly at the level of the satellite than at the level of a terrestrial clock,
and that the chronotropic shift must be regularly reestablished.
W dniu 14.08.2024 o 15:08, Python pisze:
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a
écrit :
.... will consider
that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and
that an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away,
apprehends our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him,
and it is on this abstract but useful concept that we will
synchronize all terrestrial watches.
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
No, they're not, though they're not your
gedanken delusions either. Yes, they
are synchronized by any means possible.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Den 12.08.2024 22:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 12/08/2024 à 21:06, Python a écrit :
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.
LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
W dniu 14.08.2024 o 20:11, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:37:09 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 14/08/2024 à 16:39, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
"Chronotropy" isActually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite.
thata canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so
whyit is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason
inthe satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not
uniforman exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a
density.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.
goesThis is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently
whatfaster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to
SR predicts?"
Because, of course, it's GR.
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that apparently, gravitation slows down time.
It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.
Bullshit,
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.
Your bunch of idiots
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:29:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 14.08.2024 o 20:11, gharnagel pisze:
"Chronotropy" is
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:37:09 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 14/08/2024 à 16:39, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite.
thata canard. The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so
whyit is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth. The reason
inthe satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not
uniforman exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a
goesdensity.
Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.
This is a very interesting post.
It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently
whatfaster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to
SR predicts?"
Because, of course, it's GR.
We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
apparently, gravitation slows down time.
It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.
Bullshit,
Yes, that describes what Wozniak does very well.
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
Ah, Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and
insults.
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.
Refuted by copious experimental evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments
Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.
Your bunch of idiots
Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and insults.
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,
No one is saying the indications aren't equal. Wozniak is wrong about
that.
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.
No insults, slanders or lies on this side of the table.
projecting
again. His posts have the shortest legs of all.
I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS.
Abstract
synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a universal present
time plan (which does not exist in nature).
Den 14.08.2024 00:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
I just explained to you the synchronization used by GPS.
You have no idea of how the GPS SV-clocks are kept synchronous.
Abstract synchronization, but interesting to be able to use a
universal present time plan (which does not exist in nature).
Quite.
The "universal present time plan", namely
the "Coordinated Universal Time" or "Temps Universel Coordonné",
short UTC (not CUT or TUC - a compromise)
is indeed a theoretical time defined by humans.
("It does not exist in nature", Good grief! :-D)
That it is coordinated simply means that UTC is the same at any point
in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
UTC's rate is defined by stationary clocks (as defined by SI) on
the geoid. UTC is 12.00 when the mean sun is in the meridian
at Greenwich.
You seem to think that what you call "a universal present time plan"
has something to do with GPS. But UTC was created January 1, 1960,
before the GPS.
The UTC was nothing new, before that was Greenwich Mean Time, GMT.
GMT was the time shown by the pendulum clock at Greenwich,
which was kept in sync with the mean solar day, and the second
was defined by the mean solar day.
The GMT was used from the 19th century. The word "coordinated"
was not used, but at the time of Newton's absolute time, everyone
thought it obvious that GMT was the same everywhere.
The only way to navigate across the oceans at that time (and until
recently) was by celestial navigation. That is, by measuring the angular height of a celestial body, usually the sun, with a sextant, and
via tables (made by the British Admiralty) and the time determine
the position. And the time in the tables is GMT. So the navigator
had to have a clock synchronous with GMT. Since the sun moves
1 minute of arc in 15 seconds, an error of 15 seconds from GMT
will give an error of 1 minute of arc on the Earth, which is one
nautical mile. If the clock was 1 minute off GMT, the error would
be 4 nautical miles, which would be acceptable in most cases.
To be in the middle of the Pacific at the 19th century and have
a clock synchronous with GMT within few minutes was no simple task,
but that's another (and long) story.
The point is:
Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!
And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
In 2024!
Den 14.08.2024 00:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
The point is:
Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!
And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
In 2024!
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.
W dniu 14.08.2024 o 21:20, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:29:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Bullshit,
Yes, that describes what Wozniak does very well.
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
Ah, Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and
insults.
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.
Refuted by copious experimental evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments
Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.
Your bunch of idiots
Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and insults.
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,
No one is saying the indications aren't equal. Wozniak is wrong about that.
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.
No insults, slanders or lies on this side of the table.
Insults, lies and slkanders are all the
Einstein's worship[pers have on their
side of table. And your post is just
another example, poor trash.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 19:50:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 14.08.2024 o 21:20, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:29:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
Bullshit,
Yes, that describes what Wozniak does very well.
anyone can check - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
Ah, Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and
insults.
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.
Refuted by copious experimental evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments
Only liars or fools protest this factual evidence.
Your bunch of idiots
Wozniak proves once again that HE is the one who slanders and insults.
is trying to lie that the indications of clocks ere not equal,
No one is saying the indications aren't equal. Wozniak is wrong about
that.
but asking you what they are then - results
only in insults and slanders. Lies have
short legs, poor trash.
No insults, slanders or lies on this side of the table.
Insults, lies and slkanders are all the
Einstein's worship[pers have on their
side of table. And your post is just
another example, poor trash.
Actually, lies, slanders and insults are all that Wozniak
has. He hasn't even deleted the evidence of his lies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Experiments
The Starmaker wrote:
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.
In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.
Le 13/08/2024 à 19:53, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony
and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks
in Oslo and Paris?
Try to explain it again?
Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:|
You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
synchronous.
Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
(To within few seconds|
Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
But I keep explaining it to you.
This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time”
so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
Please explain why this is not a real speed
in the ground frame.
Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D
No, no, I am not trying to escape. I have forty years of relativistic concepts behind me, and I have a perfect grasp of how things should be taught.
There are several keys to understanding RR, and either none of these
keys are understood, or they are half understood, and that is not satisfactory.
The first key, which is absolutely necessary to open the theory, is the notion of universal anisochrony.
This made a lot of people laugh 40 years ago, because people did not understand this term, nor what I meant by it.
Today, it is a little less funny, and many ask me to explain it in a
simple way, because the concept, although elementary, is not obvious to everyone.
What is universal anisochrony?
It is a property of space, just as universal gravitation is a property
of bodies.
This means that the notion of absolute universal present is an abstract thought.
There is no present moment at this moment that is at the level of a
planet that orbits Altair, for example, and that corresponds
reciprocally to my present moment.
In short, the notion of a flat present does not exist.
It is a thought anchored in man (like the flat earth before), but which
is only a human a priori.
Strangely, this simple idea, which corresponds perfectly to an
intelligent physics, is abandoned by men, while they understand very
well a more difficult concept which is the relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches by change of inertial reference (gamma factor).
We come back to Paris, and to Oslo.
There is therefore a natural anisochrony between Paris and Oslo.
There is no "flat present", "horizontal plane of present time" between
Paris and Oslo. I repeat, it is useless, false and abstract.
So there is a natural, irreversible gap between the two. If we
synchronize the watches on Paris, an event that will occur in Oslo will
not exist for Paris.
An event that will occur in Paris will not exist in Oslo.
This event is only found in the "future of the other".
And so on for the entire universe.
We will always have a time interval, an anisochrony,
which will be related to the distance.
"My present is not your present, and your present is not my present,
there is no absolute universal simultaneity"
So how do we make all this agree anyway?
We will create a universal time, an abstract universal present, which
does not exist, and which corresponds to a synchronization made by an observer placed in a fourth spatial dimension which does not exist, but
which is very useful, because mathematically,
if it is placed very far, perpendicular, and at an equal distance
from all the points of the three-dimensional metric universe which is
ours, it observes all the points in a constant perfect simultaneity.
This point is abstract, does not exist, but allows us to use a universal
time and a perfect present time plan.
But this perfect present time does not exist.
This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for
me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on.
R.H.
Le 13/08/2024 à 12:44, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 12.08.2024 22:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 12/08/2024 à 21:06, Python a écrit :
Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²
No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2.
LOL.
Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt²
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to circle
in red everything that is wrong and tell you why.
Le 14/08/2024 à 21:53, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 14.08.2024 00:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
The point is:
Universal time and synchronous clocks have been used for centuries!
|And you claim that clock's in Oslo and Paris can't be synchronous!
In 2024!
Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
showing GMT + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
synchronous.
Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
(To within few seconds|
Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
But I keep explaining it to you.
This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
But that's not what I'm talking about!!!
Oh, my God, my God!!!
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!
Le 14/08/2024 à 15:08, Python a écrit :
Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not
synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions.
They are built in order to have the same rate (inside an acceptable
narrow interval) to begin with, then drifted according to what
General Relativity predict in order to stay in synch in ECI
frame (despite what demented Wozniak pretends).
These are engineering tasks, not the stupid mythomaniac fantasies of
a histrionic senile country doctor.
But you're mixing everything up.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the initial synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.
Le 14/08/2024 à 19:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 14.08.2024 00:01, skrev Richard Hachel:
STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
I am not running away.
Your problem simply does not make sense.
You are talking to me about planes that fly at Galilean speeds, asking
me to respond with relativistic considerations.
What can I answer you?
Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
showing GMT + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
synchronous.
Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
(To within few seconds|
Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
But I keep explaining it to you.
This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
R.H.
On 2024-08-13 12:46:55 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct
you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you
saw that it is not correct.
Le 15/08/2024 à 11:33, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-08-13 12:46:55 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct
you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you
saw that it is not correct.
But I do that.
I denounce false formulas and false concepts.
I re-explain all that, and I give the correct equations.
It has been wrong for a long time.
The problem: 1. I am not read 2. I am not believed.
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.
No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.
Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
We can't synchronize all the watches in our 3D universe.
This is nevertheless done (in ECI frame of reference when it
comes to GPS, or in Earth frame for airports as Paul tried,
in vain, to explain to you).
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.
This is what we call universal anisochrony.
Are you finally starting to understand?
....
And so on for all the watches of the universe.
The solution is therefore to create a universal abstract time, and to
agree on this point, ideally placed at the same universal distance from
all the world capitals (and even that of the moon), this is what we call universal time.
It is this time that is used today, and which "simulates" a global
present time which, by nature, does not exist, and has never existed
in the whole universe.
The speed of light is not a photon moving at speed c in a universal
present moment. It is for the observer an instantaneous transaction FOR
HIM in his own present moment, the two events (the supernova bursts, I
see the supernova bursting) being part of his own present.
What we consider a universal present is a useful abstract work. But
abstract. It does not exist.
Like the ancient notion of a flat earth.
R.H.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.
Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.
Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than
you, Richard. They can use their brains. They have used Einstein synchronization, so they know the distance between A and B. They
can use a quaint method called mathematics to calculate when the
signal from B was launched.
This is what we call universal anisochrony.
It's simply time-of-flight delay. This isn't something that requires
a new moniker or to go in a tizzy about. Your countryman, Poincare understood it, so did Einstein, and much better than you.
Are you finally starting to understand?
We have always understood it. We also have brains that understand
that it is a trivial matter.
....
And so on for all the watches of the universe.
You always seem to want to go to extremes. No one wants to synchronize
all the watches in the universe.
The solution is therefore to create a universal abstract time, and to
agree on this point, ideally placed at the same universal distance from
all the world capitals (and even that of the moon), this is what we call
universal time.
It is this time that is used today, and which "simulates" a global
present time which, by nature, does not exist, and has never existed
in the whole universe.
But ... it doesn't defeat the "problem" you imagined: if city A sends
a signal at time T to city B, it will not arrive at time T.
The speed of light is not a photon moving at speed c in a universal
present moment. It is for the observer an instantaneous transaction FOR
HIM in his own present moment, the two events (the supernova bursts, I
see the supernova bursting) being part of his own present.
What we consider a universal present is a useful abstract work. But
abstract. It does not exist.
Like the ancient notion of a flat earth.
R.H.
Richard, you're worrying too much. Breath, blow. Everyone understands this, they just can't understand why you're freaking out about it.
Look, people have understood the concept for centuries. If a runner
brought message to the government of an event from City A and another
runner brought a message to the government from City B that was related
to the event in City A, the potentate could consider the runners' speeds
and determine whether the events happened at the same time. Sherlock
Holmes could do this. Henri Poirot could do it.
Le 15/08/2024 à 11:46, Mikko a écrit :
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.
No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.
That's not what I'm talking about.
For 40 years now, I've been getting answers that miss the point.
Breathe, blow, and for goodness sake, at least try to understand what
I'm saying.
I'm saying that the notion of a flat earth was a logical notion for the
first men, because "if it weren't flat, the water would fall on the
edges, and those at the bottom would fall into the void".
The thought is logical in appearance, but it's wrong, the earth is not
flat.
For 40 years, I've been begging physicist speakers to get a new idea in
their heads: the earth is round, and it's the principle of universal gravitation that makes it so that water doesn't fall, and that the
Chinese don't fall into the "void".
BUT still, it's not hard to understand!
What's happening to you men, to be so timid, in front of Hachel's
immense thought? ? ?
I beg you to believe me, it is not that difficult to understand.
You just have to abandon your a priori which do not rhyme with anything.
You idealize a flat and abstract "present time", a universal
simultaneity, it is a false and ridiculous a priori, but so anchored in
the jaw of men like a dental abscess, that they have difficulty getting
rid of it, and that they end up accommodating it.
You cannot "absolutely" tune all the watches of a given frame of
reference. Each will always lag behind the other in the best case of synchronizations. If I send an electromagnetic message to A and B,
coming from the center M of a given segment,
for M the impulses leave together (breathe, blow), but also for M, the impulses will arrive together.
We agree.
For M the events A and B will be simultaneous. They will occur in the
same present moment.
This is a method that can be used to synchronize all the capitals of the world, except that where do I place my point M?
Let's say, at the center of the earth, for example, but that's not
correct. Mexico and Amsterdam will not be at the same height.
To synchronize them, I need an abstract point, ideally placed in an
abstract 4th spatial dimension, and at an equal distance from any point
in our universe (including a point placed on the moon).
We will have perfect synchronization for this point.
All the events that
occur when it sends a beep will be simultaneous for it and will be part
of its present moment.
As for M between A and B.
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated for M,
we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always receive the
beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present for M. But ONLY for M. Breathe, blow.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and will say
B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps, reaches me
late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his beep does not exist FOR me, it
will only exist in t=AB/c.
This is what we call universal anisochrony.
Are you finally starting to understand?
We can then try to synchronize B, and A sends a message,
I perceive you as late, advance your watch by AB/c.
Which is what B will do and this time, A and B live in the same present moment, there is no more anisochrony.
Except that this time, it is B who looks at A with astonishment and
says, it is worse, for me. You no longer exist in the same present time
as me when you beep simultaneously with me (seen by you),
it is I who perceive you in reart and this time of 2 AB/c.
And so on for all the watches of the universe.
The solution is therefore to create a universal abstract time, and to
agree on this point, ideally placed at the same universal distance from
all the world capitals (and even that of the moon), this is what we call universal time.
It is this time that is used today, and which "simulates" a global
present time which, by nature, does not exist, and has never existed in
the whole universe.
The speed of light is not a photon moving at speed c in a universal
present moment. It is for the observer an instantaneous transaction FOR
HIM in his own present moment, the two events (the supernova bursts, I
see the supernova bursting) being part of his own present.
What we consider a universal present is a useful abstract work. But
abstract. It does not exist.
Like the ancient notion of a flat earth.
Le 15/08/2024 à 15:02, gharnagel a écrit :
Look, people have understood the concept for centuries. If a runner brought message to the government of an event from City A and another runner brought a message to the government from City B that wasrelated
to the event in City A, the potentate could consider the runners'speeds
and determine whether the events happened at the same time. Sherlock Holmes could do this. Henri Poirot could do it.
Hercule Poirot, no?
Anyway, our country doctor is definitely not the sharpest knife in
the drawer.
While I was explaining the meaning of these equations:
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
Le 15/08/2024 à 14:29, Python a écrit :
While I was explaining the meaning of these equations:
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c
(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c
Absolutely.
[snip whining]
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
Et voilà! Voilààààà!!!! Patatrac!! Voilàààààà!!!
Je l'avais dit.
Je suis l'une des plus grosses bites prophétiques de l'univers.
t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
Et voilà! Voilààààà!!!! Patatrac!! Voilàààààà!!!
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.
Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.
Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than
Den 14.08.2024 19:43, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 14/08/2024 à 19:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 14.08.2024 00:01, skrev Richard Hachel:
STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
I am not running away.
You are fleeing like hell.
Your problem simply does not make sense.
You are talking to me about planes that fly at Galilean speeds, asking
me to respond with relativistic considerations.
What a nonsensical statement.
Do you remember this scenario which you never responded to:
The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.
Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.
Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.
From the time they are co-located, to they again are co-located
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.
Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.
Some data:
Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km
Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s
Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference
(ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s
SR predicts: τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns, τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns
The point is that the aeroplanes are moving at what you call
"Galilean speeds", and yes, in the real world it is possible
to make "relativistic consideration" at those speeds.
You can even measure the "relativistic phenomena" with real clocks.
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.
Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.
Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than
Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t.
Common sense
Le 15/08/2024 à 17:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.
Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.
Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than
Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t.
"My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at
the local car seller.
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 17:37, Python pisze:
Le 15/08/2024 à 17:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.
Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps,
reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.
Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than
Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t.
"My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at
the local car seller.
See, poor stinker - I've proven ...
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.
In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.
For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.
In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.
Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2024 à 18:43, The Starmaker a écrit :
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
and another thing Hachel
(i have nothing against...French Science)
but, I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks.
Where do the laws of nature come from in French Science?
I have looked, and looked, and looked...
all i see out there is...rocks, there is no one or anything
where laws of nature seems to be coming from...except..
your hallucinations.
Rocks don't have laws.
yous seeing things
or reading into rocks
yous might have laws, but
rocks don't have laws.
In other words, they are NOT nature's laws...they are your laws.
For a lack of a better word...they are simply your...concoctions.
The laws of physics are your laws, not nature's.
In other words, there are no laws of physics...'out there'.
There is not even any Science...'out there'!
These are just hallucinations yous people are having.
Sure. And you computer is made of cheese.
I don't know if you have the 'ability' to understand this but, a
computer is just...'an extention of your mind.'
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement:
Le 15/08/2024 à 18:04, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 17:37, Python pisze:
Le 15/08/2024 à 17:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated
for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always
receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present
for M. But ONLY for M.
Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard.
If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and
will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps, >>>>>> reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my
future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his
beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c.
Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than
Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check
GPS, t'=t.
"My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at
the local car seller.
See, poor stinker - I've proven ...
Sure. You've also proven that Earth is flat.
I'm talking about the initial
synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this. It's not hard to understand.
Le 15/08/2024 à 19:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement:
Jest fałszerzem.
R.H.
I'm talking about the initial
synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches
in all the capitals with each other.
However, this is by nature impossible.
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.
So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe
placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract
point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal
distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this. It's not hard to understand.
In 1960 GMT was renamed to UTC (Coordinate Universal Time)
and the second was based on the Cs atom in stead of the Sun.
Now anybody can have his clock synced to within few ns.
Le 15/08/2024 à 11:46, Mikko a écrit :
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag
behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon
that will affect all the watches in the universe.
No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
it shows as it was set.
That's not what I'm talking about.
No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and >>> it shows as it was set.
That's not what I'm talking about.
Yes, you were. You said "each watch will lag behind the other".
Le 16/08/2024 à 14:10, Mikko a écrit :
No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and >>>> it shows as it was set.
That's not what I'm talking about.
Yes, you were. You said "each watch will lag behind the other".
If we do a type M synchronization as I explained in the previous post.
Le 15/08/2024 à 11:33, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-08-13 12:46:55 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Chapter 1.
There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations
that are incorrect.
When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct
you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you
saw that it is not correct.
But I do that.
I denounce false formulas and false concepts.
I re-explain all that, and I give the correct equations.
It has been wrong for a long time.
The problem: 1. I am not read 2. I am not believed.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:35:41 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
The notion of space-time interval should be abandoned because it is
complex and leads to nothing, except final errors.
What is the space-time interval?
A metric, measured in meters.
It is mostly an abstract thing that is not very useful.
So we set ds²=dl²-c²t².
Why and for WHAT?
For nothing.
For fun.
What you write is not even wrong, it's gobbledygook. It's like saying
that Newton was wrong because he used vectors or Hamilton was
wrong because he used characteristics.
Hachel notation is much more practical,
Stop wasting your life on asinine fantasies. Face it: you
cannot do physics, it's not the end of the world. I cannot
play Beethoven sonatas. I survived.
--
Jan
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 427 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:22:54 |
| Calls: | 9,029 |
| Files: | 13,384 |
| Messages: | 6,009,098 |